Bombay High Court
Mohini W/O Anand Doiphode vs The State Of Maharashtra Others on 11 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:30756
{1} REVN 296 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 296 OF 2024
. Mohini W/o Anand Doiphode
Age: 28 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. : Chikhali, Tq.Ahmedpur,
Dist.Latur. ....Applicant
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Inspector,
Police Station, Kingaon,
Tq.Ahmedpur, Dist.Latur.
2] Anand S/o Narayan Doiphode
Age: 33 years, Occ.: Service,
R/o. Gulmandi, Near Paithan Gate Parking,
Ashwini Tailors, Aurangabad.
3] Narayan S/o Tulshiram Doiphode
Age: 65 years, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o. : Gulmandi, Near Paithan Gate Parking,
Ashwini Tailors, Aurangabad.
4] Gangabai W/o Narayan Doiphode
Age: 55 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. : Gulmandi, Near Paithan Gate Parking,
Ashwini Tailors, Aurangabad.
5] Ashwini D/o Narayan Doiphode
Age: 37 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. : Gulmandi, Near Paithan Gate
Parking, Ashwini Tailors,
Chh. Sambhajinagar.
6] Manchak S/o Vitthalrao Dongare
Age: 70 years, Occ.: Agri.,
R/o. : Gondhala, Tq.Renapur, Dist.Latur.
{2} REVN 296 OF 2024
7] Narmada W/o Manchak Dongare
Age : 67 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o. : Gondhala, Tq.Renapur,
Dist. Latur.
8] Laxman S/o Manchak Dongare
Age: 46 years, Occu.: Agri..,
R/o. : Gondhala, Tq.Renapur,
Dist.Latur.
9] Omprakash S/o Manchak Dongare
Age: 48 years, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o. : Gondhala, Tq.Renapur,
Dist.Latur. .....Respondent
(Res.No.2 to 9 are Orig. Accused)
.....
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Shrikant G. Kawade
APP for Respondent no.1 : Mr.S.A.Gaikwad
Advocate for Respondent nos.2 to 9 : Mr.Mahadev Ramkisan Andhale
...
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 10 NOVEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 11 NOVEMBER, 2025
ORDER :
1. Revisionist hereby assails judgment and order dated
24-07-2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedpur
on application Exh.41, which was an application seeking discharge
under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Cr.P.C.), in Sessions Case No.22 of 2023.
{3} REVN 296 OF 2024
2. Learned counsel for revisionist pointed out that undisputedly
revisionist was married to respondent no.2 herein on 29-10-2020.
That, after initial period of 4-5 months, there was both physical and
mental harassment and even marital rape coupled with unnatural
sexual intercourse. That, accused husband and in-laws together
indulged in inflicting physical and mental harassment. That,
revisionist was constrained to leave house of respondent in-laws and
was required to live with her parents. Therefore, revisionist was
constrained to file report alleging commission of offence under
Sections 498-A, 323, 376, 377, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
That, after thorough investigation, chargesheet was filed, which
contains all necessary ingredients for attracting above offence. That,
in spite of so, learned trial Court, while deciding application for
discharge, observed that only offence under Sections 498-A and 323
of the IPC was made out against accused that too only against
husband and mother-in-law and thereby discharged both of them
from rest of the offences. It is pointed out that remaining original
accused nos.2 alongwith 4 to 8, who were also party to the above
acts of harassment were also surprisingly discharged.
3. Learned counsel pointed out that, learned trial Court failed to
{4} REVN 296 OF 2024
consider and appreciate that, it was not at all case for entertaining
discharge. There was prima facie sufficient material to frame charge
and undertake trial, however, by passing erroneous and perverse
order, accused are discharged for some of the serious offences and
hence, learned counsel urges for indulgence by allowing the
application.
4. Supporting the impugned order, learned counsel for
respondent nos.2 to 9 pointed out that, complaint is apparently false,
after thought and out of vindictive attitude annoyance, and due to
strain relationship with husband. It is pointed out that, respondent
nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 are resident of distinct places and they had nothing
to do with day-to-day affairs of husband and wife, however, with ill-
intention to rope in entire family, without any substance or material,
they too are tried to be implicated. That, the learned trial Court was
pleased to appreciate the material in the light of requirement of
discharge and was convinced that there was no prima facie case
made out against such respondents and even by applying settled and
recent legal position, husband was also discharged from offence
under Sections 376, and 377 of the IPC. Therefore, according to him,
impugned order being perfectly legal and valid, need not be
{5} REVN 296 OF 2024
disturbed.
5. Heard both sides to their satisfaction. It seems that present
revisionist was married to respondent no.2 husband. However, wife
seems to have set law into motion by lodging FIR on 28-09-2022
against husband and in-laws alleging commission of offence under
Sections 498-A, 323, 376, 377, 504 and 506 of the IPC. Report
lodged by informant wife was investigated and chargesheet was filed,
after which, application Exh.41 seems to have pressed into service by
husband and his relatives seeking discharge under Sections 227 and
228 of the Cr.P.C.
6. Before adverting to merits of the case, it would be just and
proper to spell out settled legal position while considering discharge
application under Sections 227 and 228 of the Cr.P.C. It is fairly
settled position that, at such stage, Court dealing with such
application is merely expected to determine existence of prima facie
material for proceeding to frame charge and make accused persons
face trial. Material gathered during investigation is expected to be
sifted with limited purpose to find out whether there are sufficient
grounds to proceed against accused. Neither in-depth analysis nor
meticulous analysis of evidence is expected at such stage. Thus, the
{6} REVN 296 OF 2024
only duty of Court is to ascertain whether there is prima facie
material suggesting existence of essential ingredients for the offences,
which are alleged to be committed.
Above position has been time and again reiterated since the
cases of State of Bihar v/s Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39; Union of
India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another (1979) 3 SCC 4 , and a
decade back in the cases of Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of
Investigation (2010) 9 SCC 368; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander
and another (2012) 9 SCC 460; State of Tamil Nadu (By Inspector of
Police Vigilance and Anti-Corruption) v. N.Suresh Rajan and Others.
(2014) 11 SCC 709; Asim Shariff v. National Investigation Agency
(2019) 7 SCC 148; and Ram Prakash Chadha v. State of Uttar
Pradesh (2024) 10 SCC 651.
7. In above backdrop, FIR is visited and even statements of
relevant witnesses, which are recorded by investigating machinery,
are visited. It appears that, prior to setting law into motion,
complaint was also registered with Women's Redressal Forum
wherein informant has levelled allegations against husband for
harassing her under influence of liquor and attributing demand of
Rs.10,000/- to mother-in-law Gangabai. Therein, informant also
{7} REVN 296 OF 2024
alleged commission of unnatural sex committed by husband that too
at the instance of in-laws. Subsequently, it seems that, detailed FIR
has been lodged also against relatives of husband for visiting their
house and inflicting cruelty. Therefore, as regards to allegations
against other family members are concerned, there was no whisper in
the application made to Women's Redressal Forum. It appears that,
infact, such relatives are resident of distinct places and FIR seems to
be devoid of specific details of their visits and form of cruelty. As
submitted by learned Counsel for respondents, FIR is exaggerated
version, more particularly, against original accused nos.2, 4 to 8.
However, as regards to original accused no.1 husband and accused
no.3 - mother-in-law, there are consistent allegations of beating
under influence of liquor and putting up demand of Rs.10,000/-
respectively.
8. Impugned order sought to be challenged shows that, learned
trial Court has discharged husband and mother-in-law alongwith
other accused for offence under Sections 376 and 377 of the IPC,
whereas such accused (i.e. except husband and mother in-law), are
also rightly discharged from offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 504,
506 read with 34 of the IPC as there are prima facie general
allegations without specific details.
{8} REVN 296 OF 2024
Resultantly, this court finds no infirmity or illegality on the part
of learned trial Judge so as to interfere by way of revision. Hence,
following order :
ORDER
Criminal Revision Application is rejected.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
